2003-10-06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

10 Ms. Richards said there was a suggestion at the last meeting by Mr. Lynch that Meadowcreek Parkway be put on the front page listing of project previously approved and funded, and she made a motion to do that. Mr. Caravati seconded the mot ion. Mr. Schilling asked if this implies it will be taken off the second page list. Ms. Richards said she hesitates doing that. She said adding it to the first listing would highlight its prioritization and support it as a funded and approved project. She said her motion includes keeping it on the second page priority listing. Mr. Schilling said he will support the motion as long as it is not taken off the second page listing. Mr. Cox said he does not know what Mr. Lynch would do and he is uncomfor table with Councilors altering this statement and changing the intent of the ranking Meadowcreek Parkway #4. He said he feels this is inappropriate and he cannot support it. th Ms. Richards quoted from the September 15 minutes as follows "Mr. Lynch made a motion to approve the existing list, striking #15 (Phase II of Meadowcreek Parkway), and moving the Meadowcreek Parkway from the list to the first page, and Mr. Cox seconded the motion." Mr. Cox asked for clarification about which section of Meadowcree k Parkway Ms. Richards is referring to. Ms. Richards said it was never clear to her why the portion of the Parkway north of Melbourne to Rio Road was viewed as a separate project. Mr. Tolbert said there are three separate distinct projects to Meadowcre ek Parkway: Route 250 to Melbourne, Melbourne to Rio and north of Rio. Mr. Caravati called the question. Ms. Richards clarified her motion to include both the segment of Meadowcreek Parkway from 250 Bypass to Melbourne and Melbourne to Rio to the firs t page, and Mr. Caravati accepted the amendment. Ms. Richards motion was approved by the following vote. Ayes: Mr. Caravati, Ms. Richards, Mr. Schilling. Noes: Mr. Cox. Absent: Mr. Lynch. Mr. Caravati said that in looking at the listing, Meadowcr eek Parkway north of Rio Road only received three votes and he made a motion to take it off the list altogether. Ms. Richards agreed that it is not a priority project and she does not support it, but expressed concern about taking it off the list. Mr. Cox asked if doing say makes a difference. Mr. Caravati said it does make a difference as it speaks to the MPO. Mr. Caravati noted that four Councilors voted "zero" on that portion of the Parkway. Mr. Schilling seconded Mr. Caravati's motion, and it w as approved by the following vote. Ayes: Mr. Caravati, Ms. Richards, Mr. Schilling. Noes: Mr. Cox. Absent: Mr. Lynch. Mr. Cox said that one of the reasons why he thought it was important to take action at the last meeting on this item was because al l five Councilors were present. Mr. Schilling asked for clarification of Mr. Lynch's absence .